In the spirit of a recent post comparing Hamilton and Cheney, I thought I'd explore one area where George W. Bush bests Thomas Jefferson hands down: Bush never owned a single slave (as far as I know).
Of course, you might say that times were different when Jefferson was president, but is that any better of an excuse than "just following orders"?
Discuss. Please. (I'm only being half-way snarky here.)
subscribe
Jefferson as a private citizen owned slaves, but politically he was an abolitionist. Jefferson was an incredibly complex, imperfect man. GWB, not so much. Quick, name something positive from the GWB administration. I am at an utter and complete loss.
Thomas Jefferson:
GWB:
GWB is going down, down, down in history.
OK, I'm stumped after that.
He never instituted martial law.
Ooh ooh! I just thought of something else. He stayed alive. That is an incredibly positive thing. Just imagine the ramifications if he hadn't.
All I got is that he increased funding for Africa for malaria & AIDS relief. He brought out the finest in Colbert and Stewart and pretty much every other comedian, but on the down side our President for the last 8 years was a joke.
In all seriousness, that one is actually not insignificant. And, very few would find a problem with it. (There are some who might, but…)
Well, that would have had the effect of making Cheney the POTUS in name instead of just in fact. Would that really have been a big difference? Perhaps if the emerging stories about Bush's increasing skepticism toward Cheney during the second term have any truth to them, but by that time the damage was largely done.